LAHORE - A permanent judge of the Lahore High Court, Justice Hasnat Ahmed Khan who had taken oath under Nov-3 PCO, has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court for review of the July-31 judgment. The SC judgment sought initiation of proceedings under Article 209 of the constitution against the judges of the superior courts working prior to November 3, 2007 who had taken oath in disobedience to the order passed by a full bench headed by the Chief Justice against the promulgation of emergency. The judge has contended that July 31 judgment of Supreme Court had been given without taking note of certain undisputed facts relating to him. The judgment under review had presumed service of the order against the promulgation of emergency on all the judges as it was stated to have been served upon them and sent to the registrars of all the high courts. The fourteen-member bench including three judges forming an integral part of the Supreme Judicial Council had, therefore, concluded that the order had been served on all the judges of the superior courts, including the petitioner, but the conclusion was not supported by facts. The judge has stated that the order of the seven member SC full bench was passed during the later part of evening on November 3, 2007 which was Saturday and the offices of the high courts normally did not work on Saturday evenings. He stated that the receipt of fax at the registrars offices could not be considered as service on the judges by any stretch of imagination. He said that he received a phone call on behalf of the then LHC chief justice to reach the high court when returned after a marriage ceremony on the evening of November 3, 2007. He was later asked to reach the Governor House where he was administered oath. He was not aware of the SC order before taking the oath. He would certainly have obeyed the orders of the seven-member bench of the SC in case he was aware of the same, Justice Hasnat said. He further contended that the issuance of direction for action against judges in the July 31 judgment was a violation of Article 209 of the Constitution because the authority was vested in the Supreme Judicial Council and no authority was vested in anyone to issue directions to it. Only information could be laid before the SJC or the President, as the case might be, so that they could form an opinion about a judge being guilty of misconduct. The SJC then inquire into the matter and make recommendations. The judge contended that he had been condemned unheard through the July 31 judgment. An order affecting his service, reputation and integrity had been passed without giving him an opportunity to show cause. It was also a serious constitutional anomaly that three judges forming majority of the SJC were signatories and authors of the July 31 judgment. He reserved the right to raise further grounds and make further submissions on receipt of detailer judgment because he had only the short order passed by the SC on July 31. Justice Hasnat submitted that it had been declared in the SC judgment that offering or extending support to any unconstitutional functionary by any judge of the superior courts meant misconduct. The interpretation of misconduct did not exist or was recognised prior to the judgment. The interpretation of misconduct could not be applied in the petitioners case with retrospective effect either, he concluded.